Will Ellison get Frankened over this as a sacrifice to the Kavanaugh obstruction?

The woman who accused Minnesota Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison of domestic abuse said on Monday that Democrats don’t believe her story and threatened to isolate her over the allegations.

Karen Monahan, a former girlfriend, came forward last month alleging that Ellison sent her threatening text messages and once screamed obscenities at her as he dragged her off a bed by her feet.

Ellison has denied the accusations, saying he “never behaved this way.” He did acknowledge he was in a relationship with the woman.

The allegations didn’t lead to any immediate action against the congressman, except for the announcement that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) would review the accusations. He went on to win the Democratic primary election for Minnesota attorney general.

Monahan slammed the Democratic Party for its response to her allegations when compared to its treatment of Christine Blasey Ford. Ford has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of attempting to force himself onto her during at a high school party nearly four decades ago, prompting prominent Democrats to get behind Ford’s allegations.

“No, they don't,” Monahan tweeted in response to a question whether the party believes women’s stories. “I've been smeared, threatened, isolated from my own party. I provided medical records from 2017, stating on two different Dr. Visits, I told them about the abuse and who did it. My therapist released records stating I have been dealing and healing from the abuse.”

She added: “Four people, including my supervisor at the time, stated that I came to them after and shared the exact story I shared publicly, I shared multiple text between me and Keith, where I discuss the abuse with him and much more. As I said before, I knew I wouldn't be believed.”

Her comment came after another user pointed to comments made by Peter Daou, a Democratic strategist and former advisor to Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, who wrote in a tweet that the Kavanaugh accuser will be “attacked, smeared, and demonized” and that people must “believe women.”

Many other Democrats and progressives – who stayed silent when the accusations against Ellison emerged – came out in support of Ford, including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Tom Perez, chairman of the DNC, who urged to investigate the claims and Kavanaugh.

Monahan went to reiterate that her story has nothing to do with politics. “I have nothing to prove to anyone, I simply shared my story. People can believe it or not. I don’t need anyone to affirm my humanity, I affirmed it,” she wrote in another tweet.

“The fact that both parties only care if it scores political points is hypocritical,” she added. “Do you think a person who has dealt with any form of abuse by politicians is thinking about politics? No, we & are families are trying to heal.”

And in this case, your "witness" has a real credibility issue right now.

There are generally two types of witnesses - percipient witnesses and expert witnesses. Percipients testify about their observations with regard occurrences that gave rise to the litigation. Experts testify with regard to expert opinions regarding the evidence that has been presented. Both types are "witnesses."

In this case, the victim of the alleged sexual assault is a percipient witness.

With regard to her credibility, these types of incidents go unreported all the time, for various reasons. The victim feels humiliated and embarrassed, and maybe thinks it was her own fault. This sister of a good friend of mine was raped back in the early 80s, by my friend's girlfriend's older brother. She just started talking about it a few years ago. Happens all the time.

But if you think she made it up, why would she put a third person in the room? Now you have, predictably, two people denying that it happened, instead of one. Why do that?

I'll give you one possible reason: She's telling the truth, and if she left that out, she would be lying.

There are generally two types of witnesses - percipient witnesses and expert witnesses. Percipients testify about their observations with regard occurrences that gave rise to the litigation. Experts testify with regard to expert opinions regarding the evidence that has been presented. Both types are "witnesses."

In this case, the victim of the alleged sexual assault is a percipient witness.

With regard to her credibility, these types of incidents go unreported all the time, for various reasons. The victim feels humiliated and embarrassed, and maybe thinks it was her own fault. This sister of a good friend of mine was raped back in the early 80s, by my friend's girlfriend's older brother. She just started talking about it a few years ago. Happens all the time.

But if you think she made it up, why would she put a third person in the room? Now you have, predictably, two people denying that it happened, instead of one. Why do that?

I'll give you one possible reason: She's telling the truth, and if she left that out, she would be lying.

yeah, it's just that simple....

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by |Zach|

All kinds of people vote. Not enough of those people think highly enough of Trump to make him President but all kinds of people vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

So, if they were polling better than Trump and the primary goal was to prevent Hillary from becoming POTUS, perhaps it would have been a better strategic decision to nominate someone who actually had a chance of beating her and preventing that than nominating Donald Trump.

There are generally two types of witnesses - percipient witnesses and expert witnesses. Percipients testify about their observations with regard occurrences that gave rise to the litigation. Experts testify with regard to expert opinions regarding the evidence that has been presented. Both types are "witnesses."

In this case, the victim of the alleged sexual assault is a percipient witness.

With regard to her credibility, these types of incidents go unreported all the time, for various reasons. The victim feels humiliated and embarrassed, and maybe thinks it was her own fault. This sister of a good friend of mine was raped back in the early 80s, by my friend's girlfriend's older brother. She just started talking about it a few years ago. Happens all the time.

But if you think she made it up, why would she put a third person in the room? Now you have, predictably, two people denying that it happened, instead of one. Why do that?

I'll give you one possible reason: She's telling the truth, and if she left that out, she would be lying.

Since you are able to divine who is telling the truth can you tell us if the woman accusing Keith Ellison of abuse is lying or telling the truth?

If you think she made it up, why do you believe she made up Mark Judge being in the room as well as Kavanaugh?

why does anyone make up anything?

The fact you think this is some proof that she is telling the truth is laughable. Why even have courts and stuff?

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by |Zach|

All kinds of people vote. Not enough of those people think highly enough of Trump to make him President but all kinds of people vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

So, if they were polling better than Trump and the primary goal was to prevent Hillary from becoming POTUS, perhaps it would have been a better strategic decision to nominate someone who actually had a chance of beating her and preventing that than nominating Donald Trump.

Well, your theory as to why she made up the story in general is that she is trying to torpedo Kavanaugh's nomination, right?

If that was the case, why would she add in the detail that there was another individual in the room. This is just another person to contradict her story.

What's your theory as to why she made up that detail?

People make up shit all the ****ing time. If you're an attorney, you suck. First of all, something may have happened to her but not necessarily with Kav. Her history as a very active political person who is very Liberal could certainly been seen as motive to insert Kav where someone else was really involved.

she can't remember when it happened
she can't remember how she got there
she can't remember a lot of the actual details of what did happen
she never mentioned Kav in therapy 6 years ago according to her therapist's notes
no one at all, anywhere can corroborate her story even in the tiniest way

And you think because she said someone else was there it automatically means she is telling the truth???

The goal here is to delay the vote or disqualify Kav. Not find someone who committed a crime. That's the part you want to pretend isn't happening when that is the primary concern for I would guess the majority of Ford supporters.

If something happened to her, it is not Kav's obligation to prove it wasn't him.

You should know it's innocent until PROVEN guilty. Not guilty because someone said someone was there even though they claim they weren't.

If she can't remember anything else, why should I believe what un-provable parts she can remember?

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by |Zach|

All kinds of people vote. Not enough of those people think highly enough of Trump to make him President but all kinds of people vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

So, if they were polling better than Trump and the primary goal was to prevent Hillary from becoming POTUS, perhaps it would have been a better strategic decision to nominate someone who actually had a chance of beating her and preventing that than nominating Donald Trump.

People make up shit all the ****ing time. If you're an attorney, you suck. First of all, something may have happened to her but not necessarily with Kav. Her history as a very active political person who is very Liberal could certainly been seen as motive to insert Kav where someone else was really involved.

she can't remember when it happened
she can't remember how she got there
she can't remember a lot of the actual details of what did happen
she never mentioned Kav in therapy 6 years ago according to her therapist's notes
no one at all, anywhere can corroborate her story even in the tiniest way

And you think because she said someone else was there it automatically means she is telling the truth???

The goal here is to delay the vote or disqualify Kav. Not find someone who committed a crime. That's the part you want to pretend isn't happening when that is the primary concern for I would guess the majority of Ford supporters.

If something happened to her, it is not Kav's obligation to prove it wasn't him.

You should know it's innocent until PROVEN guilty. Not guilty because someone said someone was there even though they claim they weren't.

If she can't remember anything else, why should I believe what un-provable parts she can remember?

You're not answering the question.

Question: What is your theory as to why she made up that particular detail, a third person in the room?

FTR, I don't think that "automatically establishes she is telling the truth."

Rather, it is simply a piece of evidence to consider when judging her credibility. IMO, it is a piece of evidence that weighs in her favor.